I disagree. I believe there is a lot of well researched evidence to support the theory of evolution, but to call it a fact when you admit in your definition that it is fallible strikes me as an oxymoron.Woodsey said:
What the scientific laws and stuff actually mean.
- Thread starter A Random Reader
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think what some people also fail to realize is that it isn't actually about whether a theory accurately explains the inner workings of some phenomenon, but as long as it continues to make accurate predictions about the phenomenon, it'll be accepted
I remember hearing about that. Don't know if it's true, but it wouldn't surprise me. Fox News's target demographic is made up of hard-line right wingers and they are usually fairly sheltered.Kalezian said:fact, a study showed that people who watch Fox News were actually less informed of news as compared to people who watched CNN, MSNBC, or the BBC.Clearing the Eye said:Wouldn't anything be confusing to someone who watches Fox News?Kalezian said:
That's because you're using an incorrect version of the word fact to then debate whether something is a fact.Clearing the Eye said:
Everything is, however unlikely, subject to being wrong. Gravity. That's a fact and a theory. But it might turn out that our understanding of it is wrong, and that in reality it's down to a god with millions of invisible hands all holding us on to the ground.
There is such an overwhelming onslaught of evidence for our established understanding of gravity, however (and zero evidence for the Gods With Lots of Fucking Hands idea), that there is no reason to not call it a fact. Same for evolution.
As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.Woodsey said:
All scientific theories and laws are considered facts by this definition of fact. Taking any mroe stringent meaning of fact renders everythnig uncertain, even beyond science. It becomes impossible for me to know I have a keyboard to type this on.Clearing the Eye said:
You're very aggressive, aren't you, lol.Woodsey said:
But to reply to your point, no. I do believe there are indeed objective facts. I simply also believe what we perceive as fact does not necessarily always align with those aforementioned.
It does. I'm okay with that, though. I dislike the notion of warping something objective just because it makes your head spin.justcallmeslow said:
That's what he's saying. Theories are accepted as fact. They may not be correct. If they are proved incorrect we will awknowledge this and the latest theory, if validated by further testing, will become accepted as fact. I don't see your problem here. Unless you have a way to establish if something is objectively correct so we can have a practical difference for the useage of the word?Clearing the Eye said:
It's not a case of making my head spin - I understand the implications. It's a matter of usefulness. It makes the word fact a worthless term with no real-world application. Why not keep its everyday useage (even if most people don't fully understand it) and save phrases like "objectively true" for the niche uses they may fit?Clearing the Eye said:
I simply refuse to describe something you say "may not be correct" as a fact.justcallmeslow said:
We seem to be at the point where agreeing to disagree would be best. I don't think we will get anything positive from arguing the point further.
We'll make it simple. We'll define a fact as what is almost-definitely true *in this universe/reality.*Bradeck said:
Yes, we can't know for absolute certainty that the Sun exists and that we don't live inside of a vat, but we can know with near-absolute certainty that, IF this universe exists and has rules, THEN the Sun exists and the Earth rotates around it, etc.
That is 'truth' in this universe, as we can NEVER know absolute truth.
Fact: evolution happens. The theory of evolution explains how evolution (a fact) happens. Theories become refined slowly as more facts are discovered.
Both facts and theories are falsifiable. They can be tested and repeated, and if they are not, then they are discredited.
Nothing is 100% verifiable. Nothing. Facts are simply things which have overwhelming evidence and face exceedingly little, if any, competition, based on the observations we make and the tests we can run and the investigations we can go perform.Clearing the Eye said:
You are contradicting yourself if you claim that you believe there are objective facts, but that anything which is potentially fallible is not a fact.
To make that even crazier, I recently saw a poll which showed people were more informed if they didn't watch anything at all.Kalezian said:
Edit: This seems to be the one I saw - http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/23/no-news-is-better-than-fox-news-finds-mean-old-science/
He isn't being aggressive, you're just straw-manning. The realm of science works with agreed upon definitions, you can't just stroll in and say "well I believe the contrary so I'll argue from my own twist on the definition, so I'll throw out anything you say unless if fits to my definition." It just doesn't work like that, if you don't agree with the scientific definition, that's your problem, but it doesn't automatically make your argument right by default.Clearing the Eye said:
But now you're simply arguing the words and not their meanings; that is to say, I believe there do exist actual facts, just that what we consider facts don't always align with that reality.Woodsey said:
If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible. I don't know that we are aware of any such truths. There are some solid sounding theories, but fact? I wouldn't think we know. I mean, if you go far enough down the rabbit hole, you end up with questions like: is the world around me real? Seems real enough, but you can't truly say beyond any doubt, no matter how small, that it is.
Facts are facts. Doesn't matter how good the idea sounds, if it can be successfully challenged, it was never a fact. I mean, the "scientific fact' that Earth was the center of the solar system was disproved, right? Then it wasn't a fact.
Ok, i'm happy to leave it. I would as a point of interest like to know a few things which you would classify as facts, but if you feel it would drag stuff out further then no biggie.Clearing the Eye said: